dismissed EB-1A Case: Marketing And Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8335500 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business development and marketing manager, seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner defines "her field" as "Over-the-Top (OTT) South Asian Television Marketing." (OTT 
refers here to media distributed over the Internet rather than traditional broadcast or cable networks; well­
known examples include Netflix and Hulu.) This description is extremely narrow; not only does it 
exclude the vast majority of those employed in marketing, it also excludes everyone employed in 
marketing OTT services that are not specifically geared toward South Asian programming. The Petitioner 
has not established that OTT Asian television marketing differs, in any substantive way, from marketing 
of other products or services. 
The Petitioner seeks to continue working as the marketing manager (Americas) for~-----~ a 
provider of OTT streaming South Asian video programming, which has emfloyed her since 2013. 1 From 
2009 to 2013, the Petitioner worked as a project manager for._l ____ _,_ 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to have met five criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had satisfied only one criterion, relating to performing in a leading 
or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
1 The Petitioner is the beneficiary of an earlier immigrant petition (in a different classification) filed by._l --~I which was 
approved in June 2016, with a primity date of September 4, 2015. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she has met the requirements of the criteria numbered (i), (iii), 
and (v). The Petitioner does not reassert her claim to have satisfied criterion (vi), relating to authorship of 
scholarly articles in the field. Therefore, we consider that claim to be abandoned. 2 
Because the Director found that the Petitioner satisfies one criterion, and the Petitioner has abandoned 
another, she must satisfy at least two of the remaining three criteria in order to qualify for the classification 
sought. As explained below, we find that she has not satisfied any other criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner received plaques and certificates from several local, state, and regional ethnic associations 
in the Mid-Atlantic area of the United States. None of these materials appear to be prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of business development and marketing. Rather, they reflect the Petitioner's 
participation in various local or regional ethnic events such as parades and conventions. A certificate 
from the Ban~ladesh Society of New York expressed appreciation for the Petitioner's "participation in 
the 20171 I." At least some of these accolades arose from the Petitioner's work 
withl I but the P;titioner has not shown that she received them to recognize excellence in her field 
of endeavor. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that awards from local, state, and regional 
associations are nationally or internationally recognized. 
In a request for evidence, the Director advised the Petitioner that the submitted evidence did not~ 
to satisfy the requirements of the criterion. The Petitioner's response includes a letter, attributed to L__J 
I l Director ofi lwhich reads, in part: 
Congratulations on receiving thel O I award. As you know, this is an award that 
is provided by us to members of [the] South Asian community who have done outstanding 
work in their field whom we believe contributed the most to [the] South Asian community 
in North America . 
. . . Your work within thel I community for [the] last decade has been impressive. 
Your grassroot[ s] work brought awareness of legal and affordable ways the community 
can enjoy Bangladeshi Television .... So, it gives me great pleasure to notify you that 
you have been selected to receive the I I award. 
This newly submitted letter is questionable for several reasons. The letter is dated July 22, 2019, after the 
petition's filing date. Prior to the filing the petition, the Petitioner received two much shorter award letters 
in 2016 and 2018. Neither of those letters mentioned television. The 2016 letter mentioned the 
2 See Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham. 161 
F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). We briefly note that 
the submitted writings are not scholarly articles in the field of business development and marketing. Rather. the Petitioner 
wrote several newspaper articles during a student internship in 2003, and she co-wrote a political commentaiy in 2004. 
3 
Petitioner's "contribution to the Bangladeshi community in North America," without elaboration. The 
2018 letter added that the Beneficiary "has been a patron of the I !Organization since 2016." 
The 2016 and 2018 letters both refer to~I ___ __.l's "Street Fair." Consistent with this, the inscription 
on the plaque from 2016 reads: 
J STREET FESTN AL 2016 
~---,===::-:_:.,...lvirginia,I 12016 
This Award is presented to our Patron 
[The Petitioner] 
I I 
The newest letter is not merely more detailed than the earlier letters. Rather, it amounts to a very 
substantial revision of the reason the Petitioner received the award. This revision, apparently written 
specifically to address the Director's request for evidence, raises serious questions regarding the truth 
of the facts asserted. 3 Of particular concern, all three letters are attributed to I I but 
the signature on the 2019 letter is entirely different from the signatures on the two earlier letters. 
Furthermore, the new evidence does not establish that the I I award is nationally or 
internationally recognized. The Petitioner submits several printouts from I I's website 
Facebook page, but none of these printouts mention the Petitioner or the award. 
The Petitioner contends that 'I 1- is operating nationwide," but the submitted printouts 
indicate thatl I is a local organization that exists to "promote and support the ethnic 
communities living here in ... Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia." Thel I events 
described in the record all took place in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. 
The Petitioner shows that the North American Telugu Association (NATA) and the American Telugu 
Association (ATA) are national organizations, but the record does not show that either of those 
associations gave any award to the Petitioner. A certificate from NATA reads, in part: 
NATA proudly honours for [sic] your esteemed presence 
at the NATA Convention! 12018. 
Your valuable contribution made the convention a grand success. 
The record does not contain any clarification from NA TA to show how many people received those 
certificates, who those recipients were, or why they received them. Because the wording is so vague, it 
may simply acknowledge attendance at the convention. The certificate does not give any indication that 
NATA awarded it to the Petitioner for excellence in her field. Because the recipient's name is not on the 
certificate, it does not show whether NATA gave the certificate to the Petitioner, tol I or to some 
other recipient. NATA's bylaws refer to an Awards Committee, but the record contains nothing from 
that committee to say that NA TA gave the Petitioner any award, and if so, the reason for that award. 
3 Cf Matter of Bueno, 21 l&NDec. 1029, 1033 (BIA 1997); cf also Matter of Ma, 20 l&NDec. 394 (BIA 1991) (discussing 
the evidentiary weight accorded to delayed birth ce1tificates in immigrant visa proceedings). 
4 
With respect to A TA, the Petitioner submits a screen capture from a Y ouTube video, showing four 
unidentified men and a woman onstage. The title of the video is"~-------~" Visiting the 
web address of this video, we see that the video was posted on the Petitioner's own Y ouTube channel. 
The video shows the woman receiving a floral bouquet and what appears to be a cape or shawl. This 
person may be the Petitioner, but the image ( captured by filming a television screen) is of poor quality. 
The sound on the video is also indistinct, and someone appears to be talking over it. 
The very brief video ( 40 seconds long) does not explain the significance of the events shown. The 
Petitioner asserts that she "was recognized ... for her contribution and promotion to the Telugu 
community and culture through South Asian television access in North America," but this is not evident 
from the video. Even if the woman in the video is the Petitioner, the video does not show that she received 
a prize or award for excellence in her field. 
The evidence submitted does not show that the Petitioner received any nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award. The Petitioner has received some recognition from local entities, but the 
record does not show that she received this recognition for excellence in her field. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
South Asia Mid Week published an interview with the Petitioner, discussing the effect of OTT streaming 
on television viewing, particularly with regard to expanding the availability of South Asian content. The 
article identifies the Petitioner as someone with expertise on the subject, but the article is not about her, 
relating to her work. 
The Petitioner states that she has been interviewed in various Canadian broadcast and print media, such 
as the Tamil-language television ch~ I and the Brampton Guardian, discussing! I 
programming and "the launch of Digital Network." The Petitioner has also participated in 
I l's involvement in Canada's annual India Day Parade, which received television coverage. The 
Petitioner has not shown that these interviews and activities were about her, relating to her work; the 
various media were not reporting on the Petitioner's skills and achievements in the field of marketing. 
Rather, the Petitioner made these appearances as part of her marketing duties to promote her employers' 
services and products. A transcript in the record, for example, shows that the Petitioner discussed pricing 
packages and channel availability. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that the media appearances were about her, relating to her work 
in the field (rather than about her employer and its services), we need not address the separate question 
of whether the broadcasters and newspapers constitute major media. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Director found that the Petitioner had satisfied the requirements of this criterion. We disagree. 
5 
The Petitioner claims to have performed in leading or critical roles for five different employers since 
2006. For each position, the Petitioner must show both that (1) her role was leading or critical, and (2) 
the employer has a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner cites Exhibit 2 as evidence that she performed in leading or critical roles in the following 
capacities: 
• Associate Producer, ........ ___ Digital Entertainment 
• Production Assistant, 3 
• Online Advertising Assistant, New York 
Exhibit 2 is the Petitioner's own resume. As such, it constitutes a series of the Petitioner's own claims, 
rather than evidence to support those claims. Furthermore, "leading or critical" is not merely a synonym 
for ''useful." It cannot suffice for the Petitioner simply to describe her responsibilities and explain how 
her work was beneficial to her employers. 
The Petitioner emphasizes, and documents, her two most recent positions at I I and.._ __ ____. 
The Petitioner describes the latter company as "an online video technology company specializing in TV 
Everywhere platform." The documents submitted as evidence of these companies' reputations, however, 
are mostly internally-generated promotional materials such as press releases, marketing presentations, 
and the companies' websites. A company's reputation is how it is perceived from outside, not how it 
describes itself to potential clients, customers, and business partners. 
The exception is an online article from The Frisky, which lists I I among the "Best 30 Free Live 
TV Streaming Sites for Watching TV Online." The record provides no other information about The 
Frisky. Information in the printout raises questions about the article and its editorial oversight. For 
example, the title of the article refers to "30 Free Live TV Streaming Sites," but the article's web address 
refers to "25-free-live-tv-streaming-sites." Also, the list of "free" sites includes several paid sites, such 
as Netflix, Hulu, and DirecTV Now. The "About the Author" section at the end of the article is blank 
except for a name and a photograph. Therefore, the reliability of this article is questionable. 
Even then, the article refers specifically to I I in Asia, calling that provider "very popular on the 
subcontinent." The article does not mention I I or the company's services or viewership in 
the United States. Likewise, the submitted statistics about I I concern the larger, international 
organization, whereas the letters discussin the Petitioner's role deal with the related, but legally distinct, 
I I Global information about does not reflect or convey a distinguished reputation 
on I I, and the Petitioner's role with does not necessarily translate to leading 
or critical role with the larger, international !organization. 
The Petitioner has not submitted objective, documentary evidence that I I and 1 I have 
distinguished reputations, and therefore we need not consider the separate question of whether her roles 
for those company were leading or critical. 
G 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion of the remaining criterion that the Petitioner 
claims at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve 
the remaining issue. 4 In doing so, we neither affirm nor withdraw the Director's finding that the 
Petitioner played a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished 
reputation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7